Effect of manual eyelid manipulation on intraocular pressure measurement by rebound tonometry

Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by iCare tonometers and Goldmann applanation tonometer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and the iCare PRO and iCare IC200 tonometers in measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) in adult eyes with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

One hundred and one eyes from 101 participants diagnosed with glaucoma or glaucoma suspect were evaluated in this study. IOP was measured by iCare PRO and iCare IC200 tonometers in a randomized sequence followed by IOP measurements by the GAT tonometer and then central corneal thickness measurements. After the IOP measurements, participants scored their comfort level using a visual analog scale with each tonometer. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to investigate the agreement among tonometers. SPSS and Microsoft Excel programs were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, there was good agreement among the 3 tonometers used in this study. The ICC for the iCare PRO and the iCare IC200 was 0.95 (p < 0.001), and the ICC for the iCare PRO and the GAT and the iCare IC200 and the GAT was >0.80 (p < 0.001). However, both iCare tonometers underestimated IOP by approximately 2 mm Hg compared with the GAT. Furthermore, 84% of iCare readings fall within ±5 mm Hg of GAT measurements. Neither body mass index nor central corneal thickness affected the IOP agreement among the tonometers. Participant response on visual analog scale rated IOP measurements by iCare tonometers to be more comfortable than the GAT.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated a good agreement between iCare tonometers and GAT; but iCare tonometers underestimated IOP compared to the GAT.

Effect of manual upper eyelid elevation on intraocular pressure measurement by noncontact tonometer

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether manual upper eyelid elevation (MUEE) affects intraocular pressure (IOP) values obtained with a noncontact tonometer (NT).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 122 eyes of 122 non-glaucomatous adults. All patients underwent IOP measurement using both NT and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). The order of measurements was NT without MUEE, NT with MUEE, and GAT. Both eyes of each patient were measured and one of the eyes was randomly selected for inclusion in the study. Central corneal thickness (CCT) and palpebral fissure height (PFH; distance between upper and lower eyelids) was recorded.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 43.91 ± 12.36 (20-61) years and 62.3% were women. Mean IOP values measured by NT without MUEE, NT with MUEE, and GAT were 15.98 ± 2.39, 15.84 ± 2.53, and 14.33 ± 2.3 mmHg, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in mean IOP between NT without and with MUEE (p = 0.506). Mean IOP values obtained by NT with and without MUEE were significantly higher than those obtained by GAT (p < 0.001). The difference in IOP values measured by NT without and with MUEE was positively correlated with PFH (r = 0.214; p = 0.018). CCT and IOP values obtained by NT without MUEE and GAT were positively correlated (r = 0.300; p = 0.001 and r = 0.311; p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

MUEE does not have a significant effect on IOP measurements by NT. The difference between IOP measured by NT without and with MUEE increases with greater PFH.

Evaluation of rebound tonometer iCare IC200 as compared with IcarePRO and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma

Background

This study investigated the agreement between a new rebound tonometer, IC200, and IcarePRO and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT).

Methods

This was a prospective cross-sectional study. We measured the intraocular pressure (IOP) in 145 eyes of 145 glaucoma patients in the sitting position using GAT, IcarePRO, and IC200. IcarePRO and IC200 measurements were also obtained in the supine position. IC200 measurement was performed using two modes: single six (IC200-single) and automatic (IC200-continuous) six-measurements mode.

Results

All tonometers provided high reproducibility in both positions (all intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.90), although it was highest with GAT, followed by IC200-continuous and IC200-single and then IcarePRO. In the sitting position, the mean (± SD) IOPs of GAT, IcarePRO, IC200-single, and IC200-continuous were 14.5 ± 2.9 mmHg, 13.3 ± 3.2 mmHg, 11.6 ± 3.2 mmHg, and 11.5 ± 3.2 mmHg, respectively. IOPs measured with IcarePRO or IC200 were significantly lower than those with GAT, particularly in patients with low IOP. IOPs measured with all tonometers were significantly elevated in the supine position as compared with the sitting position, but this difference was significantly greater with IC200-single and IC200-continuous compared with IcarePRO. IOP elevation was significant in eyes without bleb versus those with bleb, but this finding was not observed when IOP was measured with IcarePRO. The IOPs of the single and continuous modes of IC200 were interchangeable in both positions.

Conclusions

GAT, IcarePRO, and IC200 had sufficiently high reproducibility, but measurements with IcarePRO may not be accurate in the supine position. Elevation of IOP in the supine position, especially in eyes with bleb, was more sensitively captured with IC200 than with IcarePRO.

Trial registration

Japan Clinical Trials Register, No. UMIN000039982.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40662-021-00249-z.

Comparison of two eyelid speculums and their effect on intraocular pressure in clinically normal cats

OBJECTIVES

The present study was undertaken to determine the possible effects of the placement two different types of eyelid speculum on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement in clinically normal cats.

METHODS

Thirty healthy cats were divided randomly into two groups of 15, group B (Barraquer wire speculum) and group W (Williams eye speculum). All cats were sedated with intramuscular medetomidine (Dorbene vet; 100 μg/kg) then placed in right lateral recumbency, and IOP was recorded in the left eye using a Tono-Pen Vet tonometer without and with an eyelid speculum in place in both groups.

RESULTS

The without-speculum IOPs for cats in group B and group W were 13.8 ± 3.0 mmHg and 13.2 ± 3.6 mmHg, respectively, and did not differ significantly. A significant increase in IOP (19.8 ± 3.7 mmHg) was observed in group W in with-speculum measurements in comparison to the without-speculum values (P <0.001).There was no significant difference between with- and without-speculum IOP values (13.8 ± 2.7 mmHg) in group B (P = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Barraquer wire speculum has no effect on IOP compared with the Williams eye speculum in normal cats, and may be an appropriate choice in cats for intraocular surgeries that cannot tolerate acute increases in IOP.

Effect of Manual Upper Eyelid Elevation on Intraocular Pressure Measurement by Four Different Tonometers

SIGNIFICANCE

This study is the first to show that the manual upper eyelid elevation (manual UEE) that is commonly used to prevent disruption of the IOP measurement due to blinking or upper eyelid contact with the tip of the tonometer does not affect the IOP values.

PURPOSE

We investigated whether manual UEE affects the IOP readings using three rebound tonometers (Icare TA01i, Icare PRO, and Icare ic100) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT).

METHODS

One eye was measured for 101 patients (56 eyes of primary open-angle glaucoma patients and 45 healthy subjects). The IOPs were measured without and with manual UEE. Each IOP was measured twice; the measurement order using the tonometers was randomly selected. In addition, palpebral fissure height (distance between the upper and lower eyelids) was measured.

RESULTS

The IOPs without manual UEE were 12.1 ± 2.9, 13.3 ± 2.7, 11.7 ± 2.9, and 16.0 ± 3.2 mmHg (Icare TA01i, Icare PRO, Icare ic100, and GAT), and those with manual UEE were 12.3 ± 3.0, 13.3 ± 2.8, 11.7 ± 2.9, and 16.0 ± 3.3, respectively. No significant difference was found between the IOP without and with manual UEE (IOP difference; all, P > .50; paired t test). Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that palpebral fissure height did not affect IOP difference for any of the tonometers.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple manual UEE when measuring the IOP has little effect on the IOP obtained using all current rebound tonometers and GAT.

Meta-analysis of the concordance of Icare® PRO–based rebound and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients

Background:

The Icare® PRO rebound tonometer is being promoted as a patient-friendly device for glaucoma detection and monitoring, allowing rapid and accurate intraocular pressure measurement avoiding anaesthesia. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the concordance of Icare® PRO and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients.

Methods:

The German and English literature research was carried out using PubMed and Cochrane Library between January 2010 and March 2018. Method comparison trials in a paired sample study design were identified. Search criteria were ‘Icare PRO’, ‘Rebound’, ‘Goldmann’ and ‘Applanation’. Adult patients with glaucoma of any aetiology were included. The intraindividual intraocular pressure deviation between Icare® PRO and Goldmann applanation tonometry (mm Hg) served as primary endpoint, parameterized by the reported mean differences. For each study, an asymptotic 95% confidence interval was derived. The overall intraocular pressure meta-difference (Icare® PRO-Goldmann applanation tonometry) and 95% confidence interval were estimated using the random effect model.

Result:

Of 147 publications, 6 studies (672 eyes) were included after reviewing. Four studies showed an intraocular pressure underestimation by the Icare® PRO, two an overestimation. The meta-difference (Icare® PRO-Goldmann applanation tonometry = −0.14 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval: (−0.43 mm Hg; 0.15 mm Hg)) indicated a non-significant, clinically irrelevant mean deviation (p = 0.335). The devices showed good agreement, but there was a strong heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 77%): two studies presented a significant difference (Icare® PRO-Goldmann applanation tonometry), however, with deviations in opposite directions.

Conclusion:

Although the manufacturer advertises the Icare® PRO as a ‘tonometer with superior accuracy’, the present review could neither confirm nor deny considerable agreement between Goldmann applanation tonometry and Icare® PRO in glaucomatous patients.

Icare® rebound tonometers: review of their characteristics and ease of use

The rebound tonometer has a unique mechanism for measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) and has become popular worldwide due to its ease of use. The most notable advantages are the lack of an air-puff and need for topical anesthesia, ease of operation and transport, and the ability to use it with children. Four rebound tonometers (Icare® TA01i, Icare PRO, Icare HOME, and Icare ic100) are currently available for clinical examination. It is important to understand the characteristics of each tonometer and select the most appropriate one because the IOP values and the purpose of measurement are different. In this review, with the goal of improving the understanding of a range of tonometers, the issues with each device are discussed.